PO'ed Veteran

[dcyrilc]

My concerns lie along the lines Brin mentioned. What's to stop passing laws which require ID for any purchase if current laws require select purchase ID. Following that, what stops first a volentary movement followed by a requirement for implanted RIFF chips because of the inconvience of having to provide ID everywhere. Take that one step further and start allowing the government to place RIFF readers around to look for persons of interest. Where does it stop? Give an inch and eventually, they'll ask for a mile.

Look at taxes. I believe it was Lincoln who stated that it would be rediculous to ever have to pay more than 2% in taxes. I may be off on who and the amount, but you get the idea. Today we all pay 50% or more in taxes if you add it all up. Federal income tax, Social security, medicare, state income or sales tax, property taxes, etc. Heck, just the property taxes on my farm are more than 10% of my gross income. Property taxes = $7326.58/yr and gross income is $65K.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

And the "green police" are just gearing up.....

 

[SPYDERLK]

Yeah, the blue cop stops and then frisks you cuz he sees the wine bottles youre taking to the recycle center.
larry

 

[hawkeye08]

My concerns lie along the lines Brin mentioned. What's to stop passing laws which require ID for any purchase if current laws require select purchase ID. Following that, what stops first a volentary movement followed by a requirement for implanted RIFF chips because of the inconvience of having to provide ID everywhere. Take that one step further and start allowing the government to place RIFF readers around to look for persons of interest. Where does it stop? Give an inch and eventually, they'll ask for a mile.

Look at taxes. I believe it was Lincoln who stated that it would be rediculous to ever have to pay more than 2% in taxes. I may be off on who and the amount, but you get the idea. Today we all pay 50% or more in taxes if you add it all up. Federal income tax, Social security, medicare, state income or sales tax, property taxes, etc. Heck, just the property taxes on my farm are more than 10% of my gross income. Property taxes = $7326.58/yr and gross income is $65K.

You're probably looking forward to the state income tax on top of that. If the initiative passes next month, within 2 years the taxes will be on the incomes down to $50k.

 

[Scooby074]

About auto stops. Here the police can stop you at any time under the guise of suspected drunk driving, or insurance check. or defective equipment... you get the idea.

Roadside spot checks are perfectly legal as well

Remember, that question on all (i think) drivers test?.. Driving is a privilege, not a right. And the Gov't can basically do what ever they want, up to and including revoking your license at any time.

Do i like it.. heck no. One night i was coming home from work late, like 2AM, passed a cop, he chased (lights off) me like 5-10 kms, just to go through my car I asked why, his answer "thought you may have been drinking".

Talked to a lawyer friend of mine and the cop was perfectly in his rights But what can you do. Remember that whole right v privilege thing. I do imagine that that tactic is very effective in getting drunks off the road, but its a bit of a catch 22.

 

[hawkeye08]

I was frisked and detained by US Customs on entry to NYC,
detained again on entry into Washington state,
detained and jailed on entry into an "ally" of ours.

Talk about civil liberties being "Challenged".

Went to the middle east in 1999, it is interesting to see other parts of the world. I experienced several countries security checks...

I expect we will stop hearing about illegal aliens within 2 years, they will simply be referred to as non-residents, but if they are illegal, why are they still here?

 

[dcyrilc]

You're probably looking forward to the state income tax on top of that. If the initiative passes next month, within 2 years the taxes will be on the incomes down to $50k.

Yea, don't remind me. Not even the slighest suggestion of reducing or eliminating sales tax either. We already have one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. I expect to have to be paying both soon.

 

[hawkeye08]

Yea, don't remind me. Not even the slighest suggestion of reducing or eliminating sales tax either. We already have one of the highest sales taxes in the nation. I expect to have to be paying both soon.

As to unrealistic laws, why do we need cell phone and texting laws? We already have reckless driving and negligent driving. Of course it is ok for law enforcement to ignore them and be talking on cell phone held to their ear while driving...

 

[CMSporthorses]

Why need laws about the use of cell phones? Cos if you read the definitions of what "negligent" or "reckless" driving are within the law, and the directions in which those deffinitions have been taken by decisions and precedent in the courts, you would realise getting one of those charges to stick for a person simply using their phone without an accident or other very obvious problem occurring would be very difficult and result in a lot of matters being taken to court.
If you write a very simple and clear "use phone=law broken" statute you give a simple enforcement option with very few challenges.

Face it, cell phone usage is as dangerous as DUI and should be controlled for the safety of other road users....so if it means a bit more legislation to save a few more lives, so be it!

Oh, and you will probably find the laws you have, like ours, have an exemption for emergency services...there are times you need to use the phone rather than the radio...OpSec, one to one comms and such...

 

[hawkeye08]

Why need laws about the use of cell phones? Cos if you read the definitions of what "negligent" or "reckless" driving are within the law, and the directions in which those deffinitions have been taken by decisions and precedent in the courts, you would realise getting one of those charges to stick for a person simply using their phone without an accident or other very obvious problem occurring would be very difficult and result in a lot of matters being taken to court.
If you write a very simple and clear "use phone=law broken" statute you give a simple enforcement option with very few challenges.

Face it, cell phone usage is as dangerous as DUI and should be controlled for the safety of other road users....so if it means a bit more legislation to save a few more lives, so be it!

It is not against the law (in Washington state) to use cell phone with handsfree mode, only if you hold it up to your ear. It is not the holding the cell phone that causes the accidents and poor driving, it is the complete distraction of answering, talking, calling ,etc. It completely takes your attention away. They did not go after the cause, just the easy symptom and the cops set very poor examples. It is not saving lives, it is driving revenue. We have red light cameras here also. Studies have shown that accidents INCREASED at the intersections after the red light cameras were installed. Some expected that from people trying to stop in time (more rear end accidents, less t-bone accidents) but the t-bone accidents increased. The ticket revenue is over $500,000 in the first year, so they are putting more cameras in. Generate revenue is the game. Please note that the city has not had a traffic engineer on staff for many years. The lights are not sequenced and the yellows are not consistent or in some cases even allow a car to stop reasonable before it goes to red. Years ago, when they did have a traffic engineer on staff, the lights were all synchronized on main arterials during rush hours so traffic stayed moving if they drove at or just below speed limit. My family avoids talking at all (if we are alone in car) on the cell phone when driving, we safely pull off and then answer or make calls. It is not worth the distraction.

If the definition of reckless or negligent driving is not sufficient, then fix it, don't create a bunch of new laws that are outdated when the next new technology gadget comes along. Another comment on your post, why should a person get a ticket if they are not in an accident or causing other very obvious problem?? ("you would realise getting one of those charges to stick for a person simply using their phone without an accident or other very obvious problem occurring"). Maybe next will be you getting a ticket for talking to your wife while you are driving because it could cause an accident? or maybe telling the kids in the back seat to quiet down?